On 5/18/2011 2:27 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
How about we wait until we have the update system working again and
we're happy with a newly generated rules tarball. At that point we cut
3.3.2-rc2 for more testing.
The code works with existing rules and sa-update is designed to separate the
rules from code. I am negative on waiting for a release just because rules as
long as we have a working tar we can release that is reasonably recent.
That's fine by me, if we have enough substantive changes since "rc1"
that we need wider testing for another code cut, then we'll do it.
Otherwise I think it would be worthwhile to have a (subsequent?) cut
specifically so many people to test it with the actual rule update
tarball. Given that rule update generation has been broken for so long,
there is still the potential for surprises if we change both the code
and rules at the same time without testing them together.
PLEASE allow it to be policy to never reuse a version name and number
ever again. Numbers are cheap. We can use as many as we want.
Furthermore, I hope that we can have a final rc which is really meant
to
be a release candidate. If we vote to release that, then it gets recut
as the actual 3.3.2 with zero code changes. This completely eliminates
our confusing past practice of reusing numbers like last year's "Oops,
this is the real 3.3.1, not that previous tarball of the same name!"
I am 100% behind this. There was consensus to create the rc1 and rc1 was
released. At worst the next versions must be rc1-build2.
I think CPAN, rpm and deb's version comparison algorithms wouldn't take
too kindly to a dash in the version field. rpm I know uses a dash as a
field separator, and dash is forbidden in versions and subversions.
Just declare "rc1" dead and declare the next cut "rc2".
Warren
